STATE OF PUNJAB versus DHARAM SINGH

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 02-02-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. WANCHOO · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 9 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE OF PUNJAB 
v. 
DHARAM SINGH 
February, 2, 1968 
B 
(K. N. WANCHOO, C.J., R. S. BACHAWAT, J. M. SHELAT, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
G. K: MITTER AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, 11.) 
Punjab Educational S•rv/ce (Provinciali.red Cadre) 
Class Ill, Rules, 
1961, r. 6(3)-Prohationer a.flainst permanent post allowed to continue 
after period of probation-Effect-When amounts to confirmation. 
The resPondents, who were teachers in District Board Schools were 
taken over by the State of Punjab with effect from !st October 1957 when 
the Local Dodies Schools in the State were provincialised. The Punjab 
Educational Service (Provincialised Cadre) Class l!l Rules were framed 
in 1961 but wore deemed to ha\'e come into force on !st October 1957. 
Under r. 6(1) of the Rules the respondents, who were officiating in per-
"""'"11t posts against permanent vacancies were deemed to have held their 
posts on probation, in the first instance, for one year from ls.t October 
1957. On the completion of this initial period of probation on 
!st 
October 1958, tour courses of action were open ro the appointing autho-
rity under r. 6(3), namely, (a) to extend the period of probation, provid-
ed the total period of probation, incl ud!ng extensions, would not exceed 
three years, or (b) to reven the employee t<f his former post if he was 
promoted from some lower pest. or (c) to. dispense with his services if 
bis work or conduct during the period of probation was unsatisfactory, 
or .(d) to conflnn him in his appointment. As the respondents were not 
promoted from lower posts there was no question of their reversion. No 
other order was however passed. but the authority continued them in their 
posts for three years, that is, ur.to lsit October 1960 and even thereafter; 
allowed them to draw nnnual increments of sa!ary including the increment 
which fell due on 1st October 1962; and some time in 1963, termina~ 
their services. The orders of termination were passed without holding any 
departmental enquiry and without giving the respondents any oppo~nity 
to make any tcpresentation. 
The writ petitions filed by the respondel>!s challenging the orders were 
allowed by the High Court. 
The High Coun held that the respondents 
were not temporary employees that on the expiry of three years' period 
of probation they must be deemed to have been confirmed in their posts, 
that the impugned ordel'S having deprived them of their right to those 
posts, amounted to removal from service by way of punishment and were 
~ 
in violation of Art. 311 and the Punjab CiVI1 Services (Punishment 
and Appeal) Rules, 1952. 
In appeal to this Court, 
HELD : The impugned orders were rightly set aside by the High 
Court. [7 El 
Where on the completion of the specified period of probation an em-
ployeo is allowed to continue in the post without an order of confirmation, 
in the absence of anything to the contrary in the original order of appoint-
ment or promotion or the Service Rules, the initial period of probation is 
deaned to be extended by necessary ii:tplica!ion. J!ut, where, as _in the 
present case, the Service Rules fix a certain penOd of time beyond which the 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1968] 3 S.C.R. 
probationary period cannot be extended, and an employee appointed or pro-
moted to a post on probation is allowed. to CC!Dtinue in that post after the 
completion of the maximum periOd of probat!on ~~out an express order 
of confirmation, he cannot be deemed to contm.ue. tn that -post as a proha-
tioner. The reason is that such an implication is negatived by the service 
rule forbidding extension of the probationary period .beyond the ~aximum 
period fixed by it. In sueb a case, it is permissible to draw the mfeNncc 
that the cn1ployee allowed to continue in the p<_lSt on comple.tion.of,thl! 
maximum period of probation has been confirmed in the post by 1mphcation. 
[5 C, G; 6 A-BJ 
Case law rcferr~d to. 
Narain Singh Ahluwc.lia v. Sltlte of P1mj<1b, C.A. No. 492 of 1963 
dated 29th January 1964; explained and followed. 
C!VIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 787 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
November 26, 1964 of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent 
Appeal No. 354 of 1963 and Civil Appeal No. 1017 of 1966. 
B 
c 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dut~d 
D 
January 7, 1965 oi ilie Punjab High Court in Letters Patent 
Appeal No. 162 of 1964. 
Vikram Mahajan and S. P. Nayar, for the appellant (in C.A. 
No

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.